The decision is about to be made, so speak now or forever hold your peace

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

And presumably, so do everybody else.

What is the CIPA test for establishing the IS value?

Cheers,

Rick

Also, it's irrelevant what other makers are doing because their efforts do not reduce how effective Oly/OM IBIS, OIS and sync-IS are.

My point Rick is that IBIS is no longer a major advantage held by OMDS.
IBIS point scoring now becomes rather meaningless when other brands can also do excellent IBIS.
And in particular, comparing the OM-1 to the R6II (which is what the OP is about) IBIS is arguably the same, contrary to Gary’s statement of it being some major advantage to the OM-1

Peter

Fair point, Peter. We reached the law of diminishing returns I think, when Oly noted they were down to dealing with the earth's rotation in order to make further advances.

What I can say over my span of using IBIS: my E-series cameras' IBIS seemed similar, the E-M5 was a startling jump in effectiveness, sync-IS with the 300 Pro was the next noticeable advance and finally, the E-M1iii seems to more or less represent the ceiling, with the OM-1 indistinguishable to me.

That anybody can move a 135-size sensor quickly enough to match the small 4/3 sensor IBIS I frankly never expected.

Cheers,

Rick

Enough muscle power and they will get there ... at a price

Messier Object wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

And presumably, so do everybody else.

What is the CIPA test for establishing the IS value?

Cheers,

Rick

Also, it's irrelevant what other makers are doing because their efforts do not reduce how effective Oly/OM IBIS, OIS and sync-IS are.

My point Rick is that IBIS is no longer a major advantage held by OMDS.

Nothing tops it, so still major advantage.

IBIS point scoring now becomes rather meaningless when other brands can also do excellent IBIS.

Define "excellent"

And in particular, comparing the OM-1 to the R6II (which is what the OP is about) IBIS is arguably the same, contrary to Gary’s statement of it being some major advantage to the OM-1

Not the same. For example, the R3 is rated to 8 stops combined with lens IS. In use, it is effective to 5 stops at wide focal lengths (landscapes). With the OM-1 I can handhold 8 seconds with the same amount of detail as the R3 manages at 1s. Switch to video and start moving and you see the Canon is miles behind.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

Olympus made a rod for their own back when they based their claim for greatness of how good their IBIS was. It was a good selling point once but now that all cameras have IBIS its sales benefit has been neutered.

Akin to saying "all cameras have autofocus" and "all cameras have build quality".  Then you use them and realize Olympus is like no other.

So IBIS is very useful but its benefit has been over-hyped to the point where the number of stops runs into crazy-land as if nobody can hold a camera steady and fast lenses have become a joke.

Anything that expands the stills and video shooting envelope is advantageous.  IBIS does just that.  Rudimentary autofocus may be all someone needs just like rudimentary IBIS.  Others face different demands and will reach for the best they can get their (shaky) hands on.

The pious hope that IBIS will cure everything including capturing images whilst break dancing ...

Looking forward for a claim of 20 stops when just 2 stops might be quite good enough.

Luckily, we don't decide what other people need.  I for one would like to try 20 stop IBIS.

CruzPhoto wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

And presumably, so do everybody else.

What is the CIPA test for establishing the IS value?

Cheers,

Rick

Also, it's irrelevant what other makers are doing because their efforts do not reduce how effective Oly/OM IBIS, OIS and sync-IS are.

My point Rick is that IBIS is no longer a major advantage held by OMDS.

Nothing tops it, so still major advantage.

IBIS point scoring now becomes rather meaningless when other brands can also do excellent IBIS.

Define "excellent"

And in particular, comparing the OM-1 to the R6II (which is what the OP is about) IBIS is arguably the same, contrary to Gary’s statement of it being some major advantage to the OM-1

Not the same. For example, the R3 is rated to 8 stops combined with lens IS. In use, it is effective to 5 stops at wide focal lengths (landscapes). With the OM-1 I can handhold 8 seconds with the same amount of detail as the R3 manages at 1s. Switch to video and start moving and you see the Canon is miles behind.

The figures quoted by both brands are *fine print “up to” values. They are the best you can get for a particular lens at a particular focal length.

For the E-M1III Olympus say

“Compensation steps (Body only): 7.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO
  Focal length: 40mm (35mm equivalent: 80mm)

Compensation steps (Sync IS): 7.5

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-100mm F4.0 IS PRO
  Focal length: 100mm (35mm equivalent: 200mm), halfway release image
  stabilization Off, Frame rate: High”

For the OM-1 OMDS are saying

“Compensation steps (Body only): 7.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO
  Focal length: 40mm (35mm equivalent: 80mm)”

Compensation steps (Sync IS): 8.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO
  Focal length: 150mm (35mm equivalent: 300mm), halfway release image stabilisation Off, Frame rate: High

And for the R6 II Canon says

• Up to 8.0 stops
  * RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, f=105 mm

. . . ,

This is all very much fine print cherry picking in my opinion subject to lots of variables, opinions and brand bias by owners. The performances are so close as to mean very little when doing comparisons

Peter

Funkmon wrote:

Prepare to be unimpressed with the OM1

Do you have the OM-1? Or are you visiting from another planet?

Messier Object wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

I'm finding out that manufacturers tend to stretch the truth where IBIS is concerned. In the real world I do believe you'll find he OM-1 stabilization especially with a Sync IS lens to be superior.

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

I would have you note I have a few razor sharp shot handheld with the 300 on an EM-1 II @1/15 second. And lots of shots at 1/3 to 2 seconds @ 15-30mm on the EM-1X. These are not published estimates by Canon, but actual images. It is very common for me to shoot at 1/50 second @840mm and 1/10 to 1/20 at shorter focal lengths.

Of course these are just real images and not equivalent to what Canon theoreticals might be published or suggested.

Messier Object wrote:

CruzPhoto wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

And presumably, so do everybody else.

What is the CIPA test for establishing the IS value?

Cheers,

Rick

Also, it's irrelevant what other makers are doing because their efforts do not reduce how effective Oly/OM IBIS, OIS and sync-IS are.

My point Rick is that IBIS is no longer a major advantage held by OMDS.

Nothing tops it, so still major advantage.

IBIS point scoring now becomes rather meaningless when other brands can also do excellent IBIS.

Define "excellent"

And in particular, comparing the OM-1 to the R6II (which is what the OP is about) IBIS is arguably the same, contrary to Gary’s statement of it being some major advantage to the OM-1

Not the same. For example, the R3 is rated to 8 stops combined with lens IS. In use, it is effective to 5 stops at wide focal lengths (landscapes). With the OM-1 I can handhold 8 seconds with the same amount of detail as the R3 manages at 1s. Switch to video and start moving and you see the Canon is miles behind.

The figures quoted by both brands are *fine print “up to” values. They are the best you can get for a particular lens at a particular focal length.

For the E-M1III Olympus say

“Compensation steps (Body only): 7.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO
  Focal length: 40mm (35mm equivalent: 80mm)

Compensation steps (Sync IS): 7.5

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-100mm F4.0 IS PRO
  Focal length: 100mm (35mm equivalent: 200mm), halfway release image
  stabilization Off, Frame rate: High”

For the OM-1 OMDS are saying

“Compensation steps (Body only): 7.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO
  Focal length: 40mm (35mm equivalent: 80mm)”

Compensation steps (Sync IS): 8.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO
  Focal length: 150mm (35mm equivalent: 300mm), halfway release image stabilisation Off, Frame rate: High

And for the R6 II Canon says

• Up to 8.0 stops
  * RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, f=105 mm

. . . ,

This is all very much fine print cherry picking in my opinion subject to lots of variables, opinions and brand bias by owners. The performances are so close as to mean very little when doing comparisons

So what you are saying is that Oly OMD published info is more nearly correct than Cannon's overstated material.

Peter

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

Olympus made a rod for their own back when they based their claim for greatness of how good their IBIS was. It was a good selling point once but now that all cameras have IBIS its sales benefit has been neutered.

So IBIS is very useful but its benefit has been over-hyped to the point where the number of stops runs into crazy-land as if nobody can hold a camera steady and fast lenses have become a joke.

Not at all, Tom. Where IBIS really makes a difference is with long telephotos. In birding, one might shoot in good light and then the next bird will appear in shade. Great IBIS compensates on those images one otherwise messes up if the bird is sufficiently still.

The pious hope that IBIS will cure everything including capturing images whilst break dancing ...

Vast overstatement. Who here is suggesting that?

Looking forward for a claim of 20 stops when just 2 stops might be quite good enough.

2 stops would often not suffice to shoot a bird image. Even in mountain landscape or forest shots, I am comfortable going to 1/4 second standing in very low light.

Magnification is very close to 1:1.

In landscape it is often true that one needs to have an aperture of F6.3 to F8, so more demanding on SS.

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

I'm finding out that manufacturers tend to stretch the truth where IBIS is concerned. In the real world I do believe you'll find he OM-1 stabilization especially with a Sync IS lens to be superior.

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

I would have you note I have a few razor sharp shot handheld with the 300 on an EM-1 II @1/15 second. And lots of shots at 1/3 to 2 seconds @ 15-30mm on the EM-1X. These are not published estimates by Canon, but actual images. It is very common for me to shoot at 1/50 second @840mm and 1/10 to 1/20 at shorter focal lengths.

Of course these are just real images and not equivalent to what Canon theoreticals might be published or suggested.

Once again

The IS figures are N O T based on the old 1/FL guide for hand-held shooting.

You should:

1. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get acceptable results with IS switched OFF

2. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get the SAME acceptable results with IS switched ON (all other settings the same)

3. Calculate the difference between those two shutter speed settings and express it in EV stops.

4. then you have the number of EV stops advantage offered by the IS.

Canon and Olympus/OMDS use the very same standard for testing. They both cherry-pick a figure and then exaggerate it by suggesting through marketing that it generally applies across their product range

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

I'm finding out that manufacturers tend to stretch the truth where IBIS is concerned. In the real world I do believe you'll find he OM-1 stabilization especially with a Sync IS lens to be superior.

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

I would have you note I have a few razor sharp shot handheld with the 300 on an EM-1 II @1/15 second. And lots of shots at 1/3 to 2 seconds @ 15-30mm on the EM-1X. These are not published estimates by Canon, but actual images. It is very common for me to shoot at 1/50 second @840mm and 1/10 to 1/20 at shorter focal lengths.

Of course these are just real images and not equivalent to what Canon theoreticals might be published or suggested.

Once again

The IS figures are N O T based on the old 1/FL guide for hand-held shooting.

You should:

1. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get acceptable results with IS switched OFF

2. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get the SAME acceptable results with IS switched ON (all other settings the same)

3. Calculate the difference between those two shutter speed settings and express it in EV stops.

4. then you have the number of EV stops advantage offered by the IS.

None of this matters to me. I have fifty years experience shooting and i know what I can do and what I could not w/o very strong IBIS.

Canon and Olympus/OMDS use the very same standard for testing. They both cherry-pick a figure and then exaggerate it by suggesting through marketing that it generally applies across their product range

But you ignore posts by those that have both - do you? - and say that the IBIS of Oly/OMD is significantly better. i.e. relative differences between Canon and Oly/OMD.

Let me ask you, could you with a Canon shoot at 840mm at 1/15 second at all? Like ever?

Peter

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

I'm finding out that manufacturers tend to stretch the truth where IBIS is concerned. In the real world I do believe you'll find he OM-1 stabilization especially with a Sync IS lens to be superior.

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

I would have you note I have a few razor sharp shot handheld with the 300 on an EM-1 II @1/15 second. And lots of shots at 1/3 to 2 seconds @ 15-30mm on the EM-1X. These are not published estimates by Canon, but actual images. It is very common for me to shoot at 1/50 second @840mm and 1/10 to 1/20 at shorter focal lengths.

Of course these are just real images and not equivalent to what Canon theoreticals might be published or suggested.

Once again

The IS figures are N O T based on the old 1/FL guide for hand-held shooting.

You should:

1. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get acceptable results with IS switched OFF

2. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get the SAME acceptable results with IS switched ON (all other settings the same)

3. Calculate the difference between those two shutter speed settings and express it in EV stops.

4. then you have the number of EV stops advantage offered by the IS.

None of this matters to me. I have fifty years experience shooting and i know what I can do and what I could not w/o very strong IBIS.

Canon and Olympus/OMDS use the very same standard for testing. They both cherry-pick a figure and then exaggerate it by suggesting through marketing that it generally applies across their product range

But you ignore posts by those that have both - do you? - and say that the IBIS of Oly/OMD is significantly better. i.e. relative differences between Canon and Oly/OMD.

Let me ask you, could you with a Canon shoot at 840mm at 1/15 second at all? Like ever?

Peter

1/15 sec with a Canon R7, EF300mm f/2.8 L IS II with 2x for 960mm effective FL
(and the R7’s IBIS is not Canon’s best and that’s a 12-year old 2.5Kg lens)

I had no idea how this would work out so I just did some quick backyard tests shooting a wine bottle at about 20m range.

Free standing without support my keeper rate was about 25% for acceptably sharp images where I can clearly read the fine printing on the label

Sitting on the ground without any body supports my keeper rate was about 30-40%

So, to answer your question: 840mm at 1/15 second at all? Like ever? - definitely YES.
And with burst mode shooting little birds I’d be happy with that if I needed to do it in dim conditions

I reckon that with a more advanced body (R6, R5, R3, R6II) and an RF lens with which the IBIS can work in concert (as opposed to my EF lens where the IBIS merely adds support) I would get better results

I don’t have an IS Olympus 300mm lens for comparison.

Which Canon bodies and lenses do you use Gary ?
Where is your credibility as a dual system user to make all these Olympus is better comments and to attack everyone who even suggests that the IBIS performance balance has shifted ?

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

CruzPhoto wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

And presumably, so do everybody else.

What is the CIPA test for establishing the IS value?

Cheers,

Rick

Also, it's irrelevant what other makers are doing because their efforts do not reduce how effective Oly/OM IBIS, OIS and sync-IS are.

My point Rick is that IBIS is no longer a major advantage held by OMDS.

Nothing tops it, so still major advantage.

IBIS point scoring now becomes rather meaningless when other brands can also do excellent IBIS.

Define "excellent"

And in particular, comparing the OM-1 to the R6II (which is what the OP is about) IBIS is arguably the same, contrary to Gary’s statement of it being some major advantage to the OM-1

Not the same. For example, the R3 is rated to 8 stops combined with lens IS. In use, it is effective to 5 stops at wide focal lengths (landscapes). With the OM-1 I can handhold 8 seconds with the same amount of detail as the R3 manages at 1s. Switch to video and start moving and you see the Canon is miles behind.

The figures quoted by both brands are *fine print “up to” values. They are the best you can get for a particular lens at a particular focal length.

For the E-M1III Olympus say

“Compensation steps (Body only): 7.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO
  Focal length: 40mm (35mm equivalent: 80mm)

Compensation steps (Sync IS): 7.5

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-100mm F4.0 IS PRO
  Focal length: 100mm (35mm equivalent: 200mm), halfway release image
  stabilization Off, Frame rate: High”

For the OM-1 OMDS are saying

“Compensation steps (Body only): 7.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO
  Focal length: 40mm (35mm equivalent: 80mm)”

Compensation steps (Sync IS): 8.0

• When using the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO
  Focal length: 150mm (35mm equivalent: 300mm), halfway release image stabilisation Off, Frame rate: High

And for the R6 II Canon says

• Up to 8.0 stops
  * RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, f=105 mm

. . . ,

This is all very much fine print cherry picking in my opinion subject to lots of variables, opinions and brand bias by owners. The performances are so close as to mean very little when doing comparisons

Peter

You are reading marketing material.  Those numbers are based on shaker table, bokeh balls at 50mm.  They have little bearing on how they actually perform in hand.  Grab a R3 and see for yourself.  One second handheld has the same detail as eight seconds handheld on the OM-1.   Switch to video and and move with it, the Canon is okay but the OM-1 blows Canon’s doors off.

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

I'm finding out that manufacturers tend to stretch the truth where IBIS is concerned. In the real world I do believe you'll find he OM-1 stabilization especially with a Sync IS lens to be superior.

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

I would have you note I have a few razor sharp shot handheld with the 300 on an EM-1 II @1/15 second. And lots of shots at 1/3 to 2 seconds @ 15-30mm on the EM-1X. These are not published estimates by Canon, but actual images. It is very common for me to shoot at 1/50 second @840mm and 1/10 to 1/20 at shorter focal lengths.

Of course these are just real images and not equivalent to what Canon theoreticals might be published or suggested.

Once again

The IS figures are N O T based on the old 1/FL guide for hand-held shooting.

You should:

1. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get acceptable results with IS switched OFF

2. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get the SAME acceptable results with IS switched ON (all other settings the same)

3. Calculate the difference between those two shutter speed settings and express it in EV stops.

4. then you have the number of EV stops advantage offered by the IS.

None of this matters to me. I have fifty years experience shooting and i know what I can do and what I could not w/o very strong IBIS.

Canon and Olympus/OMDS use the very same standard for testing. They both cherry-pick a figure and then exaggerate it by suggesting through marketing that it generally applies across their product range

But you ignore posts by those that have both - do you? - and say that the IBIS of Oly/OMD is significantly better. i.e. relative differences between Canon and Oly/OMD.

Let me ask you, could you with a Canon shoot at 840mm at 1/15 second at all? Like ever?

Peter

1/15 sec with a Canon R7, EF300mm f/2.8 L IS II with 2x for 960mm effective FL
(and the R7’s IBIS is not Canon’s best and that’s a 12-year old 2.5Kg lens)

I had no idea how this would work out so I just did some quick backyard tests shooting a wine bottle at about 20m range.

Free standing without support my keeper rate was about 25% for acceptably sharp images where I can clearly read the fine printing on the label

Sitting on the ground without any body supports my keeper rate was about 30-40%

So, to answer your question: 840mm at 1/15 second at all? Like ever? - definitely YES.
And with burst mode shooting little birds I’d be happy with that if I needed to do it in dim conditions

I reckon that with a more advanced body (R6, R5, R3, R6II) and an RF lens with which the IBIS can work in concert (as opposed to my EF lens where the IBIS merely adds support) I would get better results

I don’t have an IS Olympus 300mm lens for comparison.

Which Canon bodies and lenses do you use Gary ?
Where is your credibility as a dual system user to make all these Olympus is better comments and to attack everyone who even suggests that the IBIS performance balance has shifted ?

Peter

So if you can get 1/15 with R7 and 2*300, with OM-1 and 300 pro you would get 1 second or more, with the same keeping rate.

What you wrote only means you have a really steady hand.

LeonardoV wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

I'm finding out that manufacturers tend to stretch the truth where IBIS is concerned. In the real world I do believe you'll find he OM-1 stabilization especially with a Sync IS lens to be superior.

In the real world Olympus and OM also cherry picked the IBIS specs they published. Read the * note in their fine print and you will see it’s for a particular lens at a particular focal length

I would have you note I have a few razor sharp shot handheld with the 300 on an EM-1 II @1/15 second. And lots of shots at 1/3 to 2 seconds @ 15-30mm on the EM-1X. These are not published estimates by Canon, but actual images. It is very common for me to shoot at 1/50 second @840mm and 1/10 to 1/20 at shorter focal lengths.

Of course these are just real images and not equivalent to what Canon theoreticals might be published or suggested.

Once again

The IS figures are N O T based on the old 1/FL guide for hand-held shooting.

You should:

1. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get acceptable results with IS switched OFF

2. Find the lowest shutter speed with which you get the SAME acceptable results with IS switched ON (all other settings the same)

3. Calculate the difference between those two shutter speed settings and express it in EV stops.

4. then you have the number of EV stops advantage offered by the IS.

None of this matters to me. I have fifty years experience shooting and i know what I can do and what I could not w/o very strong IBIS.

Canon and Olympus/OMDS use the very same standard for testing. They both cherry-pick a figure and then exaggerate it by suggesting through marketing that it generally applies across their product range

But you ignore posts by those that have both - do you? - and say that the IBIS of Oly/OMD is significantly better. i.e. relative differences between Canon and Oly/OMD.

Let me ask you, could you with a Canon shoot at 840mm at 1/15 second at all? Like ever?

Peter

1/15 sec with a Canon R7, EF300mm f/2.8 L IS II with 2x for 960mm effective FL
(and the R7’s IBIS is not Canon’s best and that’s a 12-year old 2.5Kg lens)

I had no idea how this would work out so I just did some quick backyard tests shooting a wine bottle at about 20m range.

Free standing without support my keeper rate was about 25% for acceptably sharp images where I can clearly read the fine printing on the label

Sitting on the ground without any body supports my keeper rate was about 30-40%

So, to answer your question: 840mm at 1/15 second at all? Like ever? - definitely YES.
And with burst mode shooting little birds I’d be happy with that if I needed to do it in dim conditions

I reckon that with a more advanced body (R6, R5, R3, R6II) and an RF lens with which the IBIS can work in concert (as opposed to my EF lens where the IBIS merely adds support) I would get better results

I don’t have an IS Olympus 300mm lens for comparison.

Which Canon bodies and lenses do you use Gary ?
Where is your credibility as a dual system user to make all these Olympus is better comments and to attack everyone who even suggests that the IBIS performance balance has shifted ?

Peter

So if you can get 1/15 with R7 and 2*300, with OM-1 and 300 pro you would get 1 second or more, with the same keeping rate.

how do you come to that conclusion ?

What you wrote only means you have a really steady hand.

what I wrote simply addresses  what Gary said I couldn't do "like ever"
I don't know whether I have really steady hands, and in any case the steadiness of my hands has no bearing on the stops of advantage IS can give me as it's a stops difference between what I can do with IS switched off and how much better I can do with IS turned on.

Peter

I have. He seems to want a magic camera.

Funkmon wrote:

I have. He seems to want a magic camera.

I see that you have an EM-1 III but your equipment list does not show an OM-1. I don't have one either as I have problems justifying adding another camera. Birding is a secondary pursuit for me; for some it is primary. I do bird, though, maybe 15-20 times a year, and shoot a lot of bees and butterflies. I can tell that my hit rate would go up with an OM-1 as I know where I have problems in imaging these subjects.